Better Billy Bunker Method

[Terry Lavin]

Might I just add that sprayed polymer liners (if that’s the right term) strikes me as synthetic, non-natural and antithetical to classic golf course design. Not saying it isn’t effective. Won’t argue the ROI because I’m incapable. But these bunker fixes get more and more artificial.


And the golf course?  Oh, yeah, it’s still a natural inhabitant of the native landforms.


I’m not an originalist in matters of gca, but this BBB just seems too unnatural, too contrary and too darned expensive. I vote no.

[Steve Lang]

Terry,


Do you seriously object to something you can't see under the bunker sand?  Do you really want to muck about in a trap for that natural experience or drive a horse buggy?


I have one word for you... 
https://youtu.be/PSxihhBzCjk

[Tom_Doak]

Well, after listening to our contractor at Bel Air ruminate about all the steps involved in installing capillary concrete under the bunkers*, I will go back to the thought that contractors love all these fancy liners because it reduces the bidding down to a few contractors who are familiar with installing it.  At $6.00 to $7.00 per square foot, there is the potential to make some money there, too.


As to the impact on actual golf course architecture, the only benefit I can see is that these liners will tend to reduce the square footage of bunkers built by this method, because of the cost [as Pete Pittock noted].  [EDIT:  Or, perhaps, so you can build bunkers with unsustainably steep slopes and not get called out for malpractice afterward because they don't wash out.]  You could also just not design that many bunkers to begin with ... for example, George Thomas only built 42 bunkers at Bel Air, not the 70-something it had evolved to.



* I let the superintendent and green committee spec the bunker liners, because I'm clearly biased against them, especially in places it only rains ten inches per year.


P.S.  The definition of "crass" implies that I am not only stupid, but that my clumsiness hurt someone's feelings.  I'd ask you all to consider whether this discussion is really about anyone's feelings, or about cost and benefit; and if it's the latter, what would be the true purpose of questioning MY motives.

[Mike_Young]

I'm sure the various bunker lining methods have been proven to do as they say.  My problem is similar to what TD says above.  Where do we stop when it comes to bunkers.  If you adhere that the primary invesotr in golf is the individual courses and everyone else is a secondary investor then golf is not being done any favors when we promote and spend on bunkers the same percentage of a maintenance budget we spend on greens.  Maybe 5% of the courses out there can justify liner expense but for most course selling green fees it is not an option.  We have lost our way with the amount we spend on bunkers.  And it's rewarding a negative.  The goal is to get it in the hole which is located on the green.  Landing in a bunker is a mistake and if the someone tells me they land in the bunker on purpose because that is the better option well then point proven. 
The industry machine will insinuate if you don't promote such liners etc that you are behind the times or cutting corners.  I call BS. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,


I disagree with your math.  If the primary investors are course owners, and they see that a $300K project, at about $22-25K of debt per year for 15 years (approximate life of bunker liner, for comparison) saves them $30K or more per year in maintenance, and perhaps adds similar revenues by making the course more attractive to customers, and thus stealing some revenue from somewhere (or creating it out of nowhere) then it is a good long term investment for them, and correctly aimed at what you call the primary investors.


As to where bunkers go from here, I can't tell you, no one can, as the creativity and demands of the free market will set that. While I tend to emotionally agree with you, look at other fields.  There have always been folks who believe "everything that can be invented has been invented" which has historically proven to be a mistake.


Take transportation, there were probably those who fought railroads, believing horses (or canal boats) were good enough, then those who fought cars and planes because railroads were good enough, then those who fought jets because prop planes were good enough, etc.  All those people fighting new products/technology also had a vested interest in stopping progress, too!  (In golf, starting with Robertson and Old Tom.)


The bunker liner suppliers are certainly not villains in that scenario as you seem to imply.  The products evolve (just got a sample delivered to my door of yet another new bunker liner claiming to be better and cheaper...time will tell) today.  Had another last week that looked promising.


But I do agree with your first sentence, the current bunker liners do seem to have proven to do approximately what they say they do, with the only question being life span.


And I agree with TD that the best benefit is reducing the number of golf course bunkers, but then again, that is just my taste anyway.  I doubt I ever designed as visually spectacular course as say, Mike Strantz, believing it was just too much sand, although I did find his courses exciting.  And, that belief may have limited some of the commissions I was offered, too.


My "plug in" number for cost estimates has gone from 100-125K SF to 50-85K SF, and I am sure I am not alone.  As I do bunker reductions on my own courses, I find I can eliminate 10-15% of the bunkers I designed decades ago, and see little or no visual difference or play quality.  (Think I opined on that in another thread if anyone cares to look)


As to the limited bidding, I also agree with TD, but believe this is only temporary.  All it takes is one of the new competitors in the bunker lining field to offer a supervisor and no license fees to any contractor or club wishing to use their product, and then others will fall in line, and together with more competition, prices will fall.  I think they have already as bunker liners become more of a commodity.

[Mike_Young]

Mike,


I disagree with your math.  If the primary investors are course owners, and they see that a $300K project, at about $22-25K of debt per year for 15 years (approximate life of bunker liner, for comparison) saves them $30K or more per year in maintenance, and perhaps adds similar revenues by making the course more attractive to customers, and thus stealing some revenue from somewhere (or creating it out of nowhere) then it is a good long term investment for them, and correctly aimed at what you call the primary investors.


As to where bunkers go from here, I can't tell you, no one can, as the creativity and demands of the free market will set that. While I tend to emotionally agree with you, look at other fields.  There have always been folks who believe "everything that can be invented has been invented" which has historically proven to be a mistake.


Take transportation, there were probably those who fought railroads, believing horses (or canal boats) were good enough, then those who fought cars and planes because railroads were good enough, then those who fought jets because prop planes were good enough, etc.  All those people fighting new products/technology also had a vested interest in stopping progress, too!  (In golf, starting with Robertson and Old Tom.)


The bunker liner suppliers are certainly not villains in that scenario as you seem to imply.  The products evolve (just got a sample delivered to my door of yet another new bunker liner claiming to be better and cheaper...time will tell) today.  Had another last week that looked promising.


But I do agree with your first sentence, the current bunker liners do seem to have proven to do approximately what they say they do, with the only question being life span.


And I agree with TD that the best benefit is reducing the number of golf course bunkers, but then again, that is just my taste anyway.  I doubt I ever designed as visually spectacular course as say, Mike Strantz, believing it was just too much sand, although I did find his courses exciting.  And, that belief may have limited some of the commissions I was offered, too.


My "plug in" number for cost estimates has gone from 100-125K SF to 50-85K SF, and I am sure I am not alone.  As I do bunker reductions on my own courses, I find I can eliminate 10-15% of the bunkers I designed decades ago, and see little or no visual difference or play quality.  (Think I opined on that in another thread if anyone cares to look)


As to the limited bidding, I also agree with TD, but believe this is only temporary.  All it takes is one of the new competitors in the bunker lining field to offer a supervisor and no license fees to any contractor or club wishing to use their product, and then others will fall in line, and together with more competition, prices will fall.  I think they have already as bunker liners become more of a commodity.

Jeff,

No where above did I villainize any of the liner methods.  And no where did I ay I was against progress in golf etc.  Just the opposite....I see us having to try and figure how to allow the game to progress.  Most of the courses in the US are not going to borrow $300,000 to rework bunkers based on a futre bet.  They either will not rake them as much, or will eliminate some.  I'm aware of how to build the top of the line if a place calls for it but if it doesn't, it is not progress for me to do such when it has no chance of making it.  I just see myself being a realist here when it comes to most of the courses in the US. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,


Agree golf has always been a tough biz, except for the period pre 2006 recession when nearly every one of us was a frickin genius, it seemed. Mostly what I was trying to say is I think what we are witnessing IS the continuing progress of golf trying to figure it out, not the industry going the wrong direction for the wrong reasons, which you seem to imply with statements like "The industry machine will insinuate if you don't promote such liners etc that you are behind the times or cutting corners.  I call BS." 


You often call "BS" on the entire industry.   The current period, including the bunker liner industry might be two steps forward, one step back, but you seem to imply its mostly a backwards progress.

Renovation costs do squeeze courses.  Like hotels and restaurants, who are all upgrading to improve their image, golf courses are needing to do it too.  Customers are tough to please, and golfers are no exception.


The free market is pushing the upgrades. Its just a lot of stuff that happens.  You seem to imply courses must plan upgrades on the cost side only, and that is only half the equation.  I think the investment makes sense for many owners in it for the long term (whether they want to be or not......)  Of course, every situation is different, which makes either one of our generalized statements hard to be accurate.

[Mike_Young]

Mike,


 "The industry machine will insinuate if you don't promote such liners etc that you are behind the times or cutting corners.  I call BS." 
You often call "BS" on the entire industry.   
I just try to identify the BS in the industry...

The current period, including the bunker liner industry might be two steps forward, one step back, but you seem to imply its mostly a backwards progress. 
I never said that.  I said liners are for the 5%...  For example...I love the Tesla but am not sure it is moving the auto industry forward or that it is for everyone...

My position regarding US golf is: that it is now, and always has been a mom and pop business.  When an industry is allowed to get into a position whereby most of the decision makers (PGA pros and GCSAA supts) are making the decisions because the owners don't know, then a problem will develop. 

Happy Thanksgiving....

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,


Well, maybe its my client base, which traditionally been largely management companies, but I see the golf biz having been transitioned away  from Mom and Pops, for at least 30 years.  And I see the decision makers being above the PGA pros and GCSAA supers, although they do value their in the field input.


And, I agree with you, its the Mom and Pops that struggle, and statistically, the Mom and Pops that have trouble keeping up with necessary rejuvenation investments.  No doubt in my mind that while there are certain counter trends, ownership is going to go to bigger and better funded, including management companies and cities who can absorb losses that a one course operator cannot (i.e, a national management can survive Hurricane Harvey whereas a single course owner in Houston is probably just out of business) 


And, those private owners may not even be golf management companies as much any more, but bigger hospitality businesses like hotels, time shares, real estate developers, etc.


So, short version, I don't agree that liners aren't for everyone.  If good bunkers are a good business idea, its a good idea for many, maybe most or nearly all, but being poor sucks, whether person, small business, or individually owned golf course.


Hope you enjoy your Thanksgiving and Holiday Season as well.

[Mike_Young]

Mike,


Well, maybe its my client base, which traditionally been largely management companies, but I see the golf biz having been transitioned away  from Mom and Pops, for at least 30 years.  And I see the decision makers being above the PGA pros and GCSAA supers, although they do value their in the field input.


And, I agree with you, its the Mom and Pops that struggle, and statistically, the Mom and Pops that have trouble keeping up with necessary rejuvenation investments.  No doubt in my mind that while there are certain counter trends, ownership is going to go to bigger and better funded, including management companies and cities who can absorb losses that a one course operator cannot (i.e, a national management can survive Hurricane Harvey whereas a single course owner in Houston is probably just out of business) 


And, those private owners may not even be golf management companies as much any more, but bigger hospitality businesses like hotels, time shares, real estate developers, etc.


So, short version, I don't agree that liners aren't for everyone.  If good bunkers are a good business idea, its a good idea for many, maybe most or nearly all, but being poor sucks, whether person, small business, or individually owned golf course.


Hope you enjoy your Thanksgiving and Holiday Season as well.

Gee we see it so differently.  Are you saying a bunker is no good if it doesn't have a liner?

 I think there are many mom and pops who do well but have no reason to shout it.  As golf become healthier for the moms and pops the management company courses will decrease because people don't need them when things are going well.  I am tickled every time the magazine comes out and list the most important people in golf as the management company guys. 

I wish he would just say these are the guys that can fund my conference and my magazine instead. 

You got to stop and remember there are 12,000 of these mom and pops out there.  You only hear about the few that close and a few that bitch about not making it but overall they can do fine.  They  just can't be an investor and they have to be active.  More golf cars, turf equipment and fertilizer is sold to these than the other upper privates and a few munis.  It's the constant construction and design changes that these guys don't necessarily become involved with.  I can show you plenty that think just like this... Mom and pops are here to stay...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Are you saying a bunker is no good if it doesn't have a liner?

Well, not really, there are no absolutes and its case specific. 

As I mentioned last month I have asked a few Midwest supers what bunker liners saved them in the first few years and the numbers were off the charts, like $80,000.  On the other hand, we didn't use them at La Costa because of low rainfall and not much rock in the soil. 


At some point, there is a cross over, when rain fall, slope, sub soils, sand angularity, etc. means that a bunker will not be in as good shape as customers can experience down the street, for unacceptable percentages of time to affect revenues as well as expenses, and it comes together to make bunker liners the best option for that course.


I will have to research your 12K of 15K US courses being Mom and Pop types.  Seems high to me.  But, I agree there are many, out in the country, etc., and the case could be made that these courses are really representative of "Golf in America" to a larger degree than the 200 or so courses we discuss here regularly.  Many of those have been the ones to close, mostly due to location, but many survive offering a low cost, largely unfinished presentation to their customers who just happen to like it that way.


Probably more accurately, the best performing courses are those that match the price and quality to the tastes of golfers within their 20 mile prime radius.  BTW, it seems to me many, if not most courses, really don't have accurate data to really even report total rounds, average revenue per round, etc., and could probably benefit from more sophistication in that department as well.


Cheers.

[Tom_Doak]

I was looking at this today from the perspective of one of my older courses, Quail Crossing.  It's recently been bought by the town of Boonville, and the management company that owned it has left it in horrible condition:  greens shrunk to 70% of original size, an irrigation system with many faults, and zero sand in any of the 42 bunkers we built.  We are trying to give them some decent numbers for getting it back into decent shape [gratis, of course], and it looks like it will take more than $1m in repairs of deferred maintenance to get there.


Lining the bunkers would cost maybe $100k on top of everything else.  I can't see them wanting to go into debt to pay for that.  If you were a taxpayer in the town of Boonville, would you want them to?


The number that's been thrown around for annual maintenance savings due to liners is $30,000 per year.  Let's say that with generous benefits, the laborers are making $20/hr.  That's 1500 man-hours of repairing washouts.  That seems high to me.  I hope that whoever is checking these numbers isn't the same guy who did the pro forma on the course in the beginning, before it got sold for 15 cents on the dollar?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,


I agree it seems high, but as per above, some supers estimate even higher, perhaps out of self interest.  I had pegged it at about $15,000 per year, but rainfall varies and the shoveling could be five days one year and 50 the next.


I recently had a similar experience on a 20 year old course of mine.  Start with the $1.25-$1.5M irrigation system, reduce and upgrade bunkers that had no sand, at maybe $360K, level some tees, add some forward tees, fix a few rickety bridges and broken cart paths.  The total came out over $2M just to stay in business, which is a hard pill to swallow, especially since it was built by a company that promised no city funds would ever be needed, etc., and the council knows the voters remember that well.


Still, the city owned a course (and leased it) for 20 years, and put no money in it, and now needs to spend that $2M, mostly because it didn't (and couldn't because it wasn't meeting pro forma expectations) enforce their minimum annual investment clause, and now they have it back.  By industry standards, they would have been investing 3-4% of course construction cost every year for capital improvements, and at today's new course construction cost of maybe $7M, that would be $200,000 annually, or $4M total.  In essence they are playing catch up, like most courses with deferred maintenance.


I feel badly for them, but no one cares about feelings, right?  Eventually, all courses need to invest something, and the question is  whether that $100K extra (which should cost them only $8-10 K per year depending on their bond rating) pay off in maintenance savings (which would be at least $8K in maintenance savings by nearly anyone who estimates these things)  and, given how golfers feel about nice sand in the bunkers, at $40 per round, will they get just 200 more rounds due to better maintenance?


If they take the long view, they may very well want to invest in bunker liners, but then, its there call.  It is usually short term thinking that leads to deferred maintenance anyway, and management companies have certainly left more than a few cities in similar binds.

[Don Mahaffey]

My company has installed a bunch of Cap Concrete. No one, and I mean no one, in the building construction business would ever pay the $$$ per yard of mud that Cap Concrete charges. That's why they sell it by the sq ft. No one has to tell me how much I'm cutting my own throat by posting this sort of thing here, but I didn't like the work and if that is how I have to make my living I'll do something else. Cap Concrete, BBB, Bunker solutions, are all insanely expensive because many decision makers in golf are just plain ...(fill in adjective...) and are willing to foot the bill. Its just accepted in golf. And all those savings numbers, those come right from the guys selling the stuff. Show me courses that are actually reducing staff members and equipment and I'll listen. If the budgets remain close to the same and the staff members are just doing something different...how exactly is that savings?  Its just another thing that you would never pay for if it was for your own house or business and coming out of your pocket. And no supt or board member is ever going to come forward and say anything bad about a process they were involved in selling.

I was contacted last week by a golf management firm that asked me if I'd consult to help them reduce their operational costs. I told them I only worked on start ups any more because whenever I came in and addressed operating courses, staff just got defensive and justified why they needed to keep doing what they were doing.The VP of the company wanted me to come in, but the guy in charge of the golf operations wasn't warm to the idea and no way I needed that headache.  I don't claim there to be magic bullets, but just simple practical sense is usually all that's needed. But when you have associations that are only about finding sponsorship dollars to stay alive, then the sponsors become king.  In golf the guys selling the stuff rule the roost.

[Peter Pallotta]

I've been reading along on this thread just to learn something new, but it wasn't until a line in Don's post that the basic choice became clear (at least from my own limited perspective):

The choice is between a person and a piece of plastic (polymer).
 
If a golf course has a full time maintenance crew of 5 guys being paid for 40 weeks a year, those 5 guys will either be doing one thing, or they'll be doing something else -- e.g. if they have to fix some washed-out bunkers, then they'll leave cleaning out the maintenance shed or clearing out some dead wood for another time, and vice-versa.   

So the only way the BBB actually saves the owner money is if he says: "Since we now won't *ever* be spending time fixing bunkers, we can get by with 4 maintenance guys instead of 5"...and fires someone.

Paying for the plastic over 10 years costs the same as providing a person with a job for those 10 years.

Isn't it nicer and better for everyone involved to preference the person over the plastic?     

[Steve Lang]

Peter,


I guess the other thing that begs interest, related to Terry Lavin's first interest in the BBB, is the appropriateness of the application, after all, it appears that at Beverly the mixing of native soils and the pretty white non-native sand used in their bunkers was mixing after 7 years... leading to a need for rehab.


Looking at the Cook County Soils Survey it appears that "glacial till of unsorted ice-deposited sediment composed of a matrix of silt, clay, and sand in which pebbles, cobbles, and boulders are embedded" is present in the Beverly area and making up the lake plain and moraines geology there. 


Looking at the NOAA rainfall data for the area, it appears that 1 hour events, on 1, 10, and 100 year frequencies, accumulate 1.2, 2.1, & 3.1 inches of water respectively.  For 24 hour events, on 1, 10 & 100 year frequency, the values are 2.4, 4.4, and 7.2 inches of water.


So it appears in Chicago area, and at least at Beverly, the soils and rainfall are enough to cause them to replace everything once every 7 years or so... its that maintenance/replacement cost and maybe loss of playing time during the work that potentially would also be saved perhaps for 20-30 years, say 3-4 cycles of sand replacement, and also saving $ that could perhaps keep someone employed there too.     
 
I'd judge that cost savings as not insignificant...

[Alan FitzGerald CGCS MG]

Full disclosure before I add to this; I import Blinder (a BBB competitor) from the UK so intimately know all these products, their positives, negatives etc. I'm still a superintendent so see what goes on from that side of the business also.

I've seen and heard the numbers thrown around about how liners will save money. They will, but as mentioned above, the savings are usually indirect (ie the labor used elsewhere). I've seen some outrageous savings that I have a hard time calculating- although the main driver of both will depend on the amount of rainfall a property sees coupled with the bunker design. The bigger saving is when the bunker lasts longer over a non lined bunker with the replacement cost being further away. The secondary benefit is player content ie the bunkers are back in play quicker after a storm - which can be important for a public course.

Saying that the main reason for a liner is to protect the investment of a bunker renovation. I grew-in and still am the super at the last private course to open in PA. At the time the only liners available were the fabrics and Sportcrete, which was just coming on the market. It was a similar concept to BBB, ultimately failing miserably and leading to Blinder, Capcon and Matrix, as the supers who created those products looked to find a better product. I had prior experience with the fabrics and was wary of Sportcrete so the decision was made to save the money on the liners and see what the future brought.

As soon as the first storm passed the bunkers were contaminated. The maintenance staff removed the silt, replaced sand as needed etc but still they were no longer pure. Since then, each storm has contaminated them a little more and even with maintenance to offset the contamination within 5-6 years the complaints started. So here is a new club where members expected perfect conditions (as they should since it's new) and yet they never played from good bunkers. Add in the stones that have worked up from the subsoil, the floors that have washed out and are no longer properly shaped, the bunkers need redoing.

At the time there were no viable long term options to line bunkers - now there are multiple of varying qualities and cost. If these were available 10 years ago the club would not be in this position right now - the sand -while maybe not 100% as bright as it was -would still be clean, there would be no stones and most of all they would still be in good playable shape.

So there is a real world example of why liners are needed. If there is a product available that protects a large investment (admittedly by making that investment larger) then why wouldn't it be at the very least considered? If the club here were to do a sand replacement project it would cost ~$200,000 in sand alone (assuming the same amount of sand remained). On top of that there is the cost to add that sand. While this is far from the full renovation required there would also have to be some work done on the floors drainage etc which will increase that number. So even conservatively you're looking at adding another $100,000 on something that will start to deteriorate as soon as the first major rainfall. So is the extra cost of a liner worth guaranteeing that won't happen, the investment lasts longer and the only deterioration is the natural dirtying of the sand?

Is it only the big clubs that are willing to spend the cost? What Blinder in the UK are seeing is a lot of smaller clubs buy in as they see the long term investment, even if it takes them a number of years to do all the bunkers rather than doing them all at once like the big clubs.

I get that liners are not "natural"  but neither are sand bunkers in the red clay soils of Pennsylvania...... Design plays a lot into it. Bunkers can be designed where you don't need a liner, sod liners can work in some instances but now when the location, design or soil type of a bunker will result in it having issues there are now options to make it last. 

I hesitated posting to this thread as it could be argued I have a vested interest as I'm selling a liner and I am a super. However if a club is committing money to make itself better then why not guarantee it will last? I'd like to hear why someone thinks that would not be a good thing.

[Jeff_Brauer]

If a golf course has a full time maintenance crew of 5 guys being paid for 40 weeks a year, those 5 guys will either be doing one thing, or they'll be doing something else -- e.g. if they have to fix some washed-out bunkers, then they'll leave cleaning out the maintenance shed or clearing out some dead wood for another time, and vice-versa.   

So the only way the BBB actually saves the owner money is if he says: "Since we now won't *ever* be spending time fixing bunkers, we can get by with 4 maintenance guys instead of 5"...and fires someone.

Peter,


The problem isn't the average time spent shoveling sand in bunkers, its the unscheduled nature of it.  The supers I talk to, who have a crew of under 10, say that in every rain, they send two guys out to mow greens, and the rest shovel sand for a few days, leaving other maintenance tasks, like tee, green, fairway and rough mowing, go for the days required to get the bunkers back to playable conditions. That's a little more serious problem for supers than not sweeping out the barn or giving the golf course dog a bath.


If that happens often enough, customers go somewhere else, other problems arise, etc.)  It's hard to budget for unscheduled efforts that take the entire crew.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, Jeff.
Another example of our own experiences influencing our thoughts. My experience is that the bunkers at our modest 40+ year old local course handle the occasional and intense thunderstorm very well. I don't know what the maintenance guys must have to do, but when I arrive later that day or the next, the only ''problem' I see is that the lowest parts of the bunker are damp and hard-packed.
Alan, thanks for a fine post.
Peter 

[Mike_Young]

Alan,
I see no problem with you posting what you did.  I'm not saying certain liners are bad or that they are villans for selling them.  Jerry Lemmons who sells the BBB is a good guy.  I don't know all of the other guys.

I'm just saying two things.
1-  the way so many of the mom and pops ,who make up the majority of the golf course in this country, operate they would not pay for this product.  And many of the cost mentioned would be less for them because most don't buy the special bunker sands and just use some local sand at less than $10 bucks per yard and they rake once or twice a week...  The bunker can be contaminated but clean and raked and the guy paying $40 bucks is fine.  What matters is having the best greens one can have.  If the economy ever got to where these places could charge $60 bucks then bunkers might be addressed.

2- I don't like the way it is often portrayed here that one is not giving a professional opinion or that one is cutting corners or that one is wrong to not push for the latest and greatest at every project.  Trust me..I am confident I can build as efficient and as expensive a course as the next guy and can hype that up.  So I don't need anyone going pompous ass on me for not pushing liners on many courses. 

[Connor Dougherty]

P.S.  The definition of "crass" implies that I am not only stupid, but that my clumsiness hurt someone's feelings.  I'd ask you all to consider whether this discussion is really about anyone's feelings, or about cost and benefit; and if it's the latter, what would be the true purpose of questioning MY motives.

I was talking to John Moore and my roommate at dinner a few weeks ago about our interaction on this thread, and they informed me how frowned upon it is to call someone "crass." Knowing what it means now (or at least how most people interpret it), it's not the word I would have used nor was I trying to imply that I was saying that you were stupid or that the clumsiness hurt my feelings. If you were offended by the comment I am truly sorry.


What I was trying to say was that your original comment didn't really add or detract from the argument for or against using Better Billy Bunker. It simply stated that contractors use it as a way to drum up more business. Sure, there are golf courses now doing bunker renovations in large part because they have superintendents who want the BBB installed, even if it doesn't really make that much sense for its locale (see-Bel Air, or certainly many of the sites you have worked on given the soil conditions). There's no universal solution for anything when it comes to construction methods and maintenance, that's part of what I like about this job. It challenges you to think out of the box at times.


I'm more intrigued by the logic that clubs take the savings from bunker maintenance and apply it elsewhere, ultimately making the maintenance budget bigger...That should be the end goal of their installation, but how often is that actually the case?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Conner,


First, Stars fan here, and gotta love another hockey fan......


Second, I can't recall a budget going down after installation of better billy bunker, or USGA greens, or whatever.  It stays the same, or goes up, but maybe "not as much as it would have" or "less than inflation this year" which is hard to measure.


Thinking that the budget goes down when a specific items should go down, in this case, as a result of BBB, presumes the superintendent had every little hearts desire accounted for in his/her budget in the first place.  Such is not usually the case.  They have to make hard choices about what to do or not do, but labor savings from BBB should allow them to check off a few more boxes outside basic maintenance.  Again, hard to measure but hopefully, golfers notice the uptick in maintenance levels both within and outside the sand bunkers.


Sort of OT, but we once had a superintendent who was fanatical about edging the turf away from the cart path edges, preferring a clean look.  While that is usually 2-4 times per year task, this person had a full time guy on it, and when he got around to 18, it was time to go back to the first hole again, given how fast Bermuda grows.  Once we convinced him that should have been a lower priority, he was able to maintain the 20 bunkers we added to his previously bunkerless design (said he didn't have time to maintain bunkers). In the first year after re-opening, play went up 50% due to the bunkers (which had cloth liners, BTW, to save money over BBB).  Just an example of how supers must or can switch priorities around to improve course presentation.  Another example from the same course was his (correct, IMHO, but some disagreed) decision to leave fw and roughs a bit higher to reduce mowing costs, which I thought was just fine for a $30 greens fee course.

[Mike_Young]

Connor,

you say above: "I'm more intrigued by the logic that clubs take the savings from bunker maintenance and apply it elsewhere, ultimately making the maintenance budget bigger...That should be the end goal of their installation, but how often is that actually the case?"

I'm confused by that sentence.  I've always considered golf maintenance expense and construction to have two camps.  The first is the small group of clubs run by committee who divide the cost of a project amongst members ..ex: a million dollar project at a 1000 member club is really just a $1000 project.   This works like the government and taxes.  The second group says if I can operate for this much then I can make this much profit and a million dollar expense is a cost that has to be justified and is not just there so that they can spend more somewhere else but instead there to help make a profit.   These are two entirely different golf operations.    In many other businesses if an engineer was designing a product and said " hey, this method will save us $50 per piece.  Can I find something else to put on here for the $50 savings?"  He would be looked at as if he were crazy.  Golf needs to be looked at as to how we can do it in a manner that is affordable for most if it is to make it.   But perhaps you meant something different.

Jeff,

You say:"Sort of OT, but we once had a superintendent who was fanatical about edging the turf away from the cart path edges, preferring a clean look.  While that is usually 2-4 times per year task, this person had a full time guy on it, and when he got around to 18, it was time to go back to the first hole again, given how fast Bermuda grows.  Once we convinced him that should have been a lower priority, he was able to maintain the 20 bunkers we added to his previously bunkerless design (said he didn't have time to maintain bunkers). In the first year after re-opening, play went up 50% due to the bunkers (which had cloth liners, BTW, to save money over BBB).  Just an example of how supers must or can switch priorities around to improve course presentation.  Another example from the same course was his (correct, IMHO, but some disagreed) decision to leave fw and roughs a bit higher to reduce mowing costs, which I thought was just fine for a $30 greens fee course.

Do you really think play went up on a golf course 50% due to bunkers?  It's a $30 green fee course.  Really up play 50%??
After I had been in business about 10 years a local archie who was later prez of you fraternity told me my goal should be to get higher and higher budgets to be successful in the business.  That one statement really stuck with me and changed the way I thought about so much.  As I was thinking about our earlier discussions on this thread and you questioned how many mom and pops were out there and how management companies could do more than those courses, well I did some calculating. 

Last year NGF said 460 million rounds were played.  Presently we have about 15,000 courses.  If we say there are 2500 private, resort type courses across the country with the rest being mom and pops and that 1000 of those 2500 are upper and play 15,000 rounds each and the other 1500 of those courses play 30,000 rounds each for a total of 60 million rounds leaving 400,000,000 rounds played by the other 12,500 courses out there.  Now granted the 12,500 course don't promote outside of a 20 mile radius and they don't buy new equipment or if they do renovation they don't hire archies often and they don't hire management companies but they do lease golf cars, hire golf pros and supts and buy golf balls.  That is golf in this country to me....not that I don't appreciate the 2500 but the business is in figuring how to deal with those 12,500.  Ask a Clubcar or a Titleist or even a Toro and see what they say.  While the 2500 is making the splash and getting all of the awards and "most important in golf" awards the other guys are just laughing and doing their thing.

Go eat a turkey....

[Tom_Doak]

I was talking to John Moore and my roommate at dinner a few weeks ago about our interaction on this thread, and they informed me how frowned upon it is to call someone "crass." Knowing what it means now (or at least how most people interpret it), it's not the word I would have used nor was I trying to imply that I was saying that you were stupid or that the clumsiness hurt my feelings. If you were offended by the comment I am truly sorry.

Connor:


I have a pretty thick skin, and don't take offense easily.  I usually see things like that and think that someone is trying to minimize the substance of my comments by changing the subject and attacking me, instead.  I am not offended by your posts on this thread ... but you weren't the only one to call me crass, either.  I also got it from at least one of the plaid-jacket guys.  Maybe he doesn't know his English very well, either.


Nor did I take any offense at Alan FitzGerald's post.  If a club is spending millions of dollars on a renovation, then spending somewhat more to protect the sand is justifiable, as long as you believe the product will last long-term as it's claimed.  [Over the past 20 years, I've seen many products come and go, and had to rip out some of the old ones.]


Mike Young said it better than I could ... the bothersome point is that some architects believe the most expensive solution is the best solution for all situations, and have no hesitation saying that a club or a town should take on debt to go that way.  [I cringe when I think of what my parents would have thought of that, or what anyone I know in Scotland would say.  The idea of taking on debt to build golf hasn't worked out well that often in history.]  That, of course, is not limited to bunker liners ... I've never seen a bigger waste of money than trucking in "USGA greens mix" on a site where the native soil would have probably passed the spec.


Much like USGA greens, too, I am somewhat concerned about being able to build the shapes you want when you keep adding layers to the construction process.  It makes it harder to visualize the final product ... and once you've got the liner in the bunker, it's too late.  I saw an awful example of this in Germany last year, where the bunkers wound up so shallow as to be meaningless, but they are locked into that depth now because they spent so much money achieving it!  If you are using any of these products, there is more of an imperative to get the shaping 100% right the first time, because editing is way more expensive than before.

[Tom_Doak]

Presently we have about 15,000 courses.  If we say there are 2500 private, resort type courses across the country with the rest being mom and pops and that 1000 of those 2500 are upper and play 15,000 rounds each and the other 1500 of those courses play 30,000 rounds each for a total of 60 million rounds leaving 400,000,000 rounds played by the other 12,500 courses out there.

Mike:


I love your input here but do you have any backup for your 2500 out of 15,000 number, or the number of total rounds those 2500 courses generate?  I agree with you that the majority of courses are small-time affairs, but I think you're exaggerating the numbers.  For example, there are lots of "mom and pop" operations in northern Michigan, but there aren't five times as many of them as there are resort-owned properties.